From echo chamber to persuasive device? Rethinking the role of the Internet in campaigns

Most of the e-campaigning literature claims that the Internet can reinforce political attitudes, but not change them. In this article, I analyze the issue through the receive−accept−sample (RAS) theory, which postulates that messages can change attitudes if they are both received and accepted by audiences. Based on qualitative elite interviews with 31 consultants and operatives involved in the 2008 United States presidential election, I argue that campaigns are finding new avenues to improve both reception and acceptance of their messages, and the implications merit close empirical scrutiny. The probability of message reception can be increased by citizens’ propensity to seek out issue positions online and by diffusion through low-threshold activities by supporters; the probability of message acceptance can be augmented by video and the targeting of content; finally, indirect persuasion through interpersonal communication can increase the probability of both reception and acceptance.

[1]  Peter L. Francia,et al.  The internet in U.S. election campaigns , 2008 .

[2]  R. Garrett Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate , 2009 .

[3]  P. Norris Preaching to the Converted? , 2001 .

[4]  Jennifer Suzanne Earl,et al.  Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide: A Comparative Study , 2014 .

[5]  Michael Margolis Campaigning Online: The Internet in U.S. Elections , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[6]  William G. Mayer The Swing Voter in American Politics , 2008 .

[7]  Laurel S. Gleason,et al.  A New Era of Minimal Effects? A Response to Bennett and Iyengar , 2010 .

[8]  Bruce E. Gronbeck,et al.  The Repersonalization of Presidential Campaigning in 2004 , 2005 .

[9]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  Explicating Opinion Leadership: Nonpolitical Dispositions, Information Consumption, and Civic Participation , 2006 .

[10]  Herbert Snyder,et al.  Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data , 1996 .

[11]  A. Chadwick Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide: Recent Shifts in the Relationship between the Internet and Democratic Engagement in Britain and the United States , 2012 .

[12]  Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck,et al.  Mass Communication, Personal Communication and Vote Choice: The Filter Hypothesis of Media Influence in Comparative Perspective , 2003, British Journal of Political Science.

[13]  D. Rucinski The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .

[14]  H. Rubin,et al.  Qualitative Interviewing (2nd ed.): The Art of Hearing Data , 2005 .

[15]  Barbara Warnick Rhetoric Online: Persuasion and Politics on the World Wide Web , 2007 .

[16]  Sara Vissers From preaching to the converted to preaching through the converted , 2009 .

[17]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement? , 2009 .

[18]  F. Gasparo,et al.  Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. and Its Procedural Shock Wave: The Markman Hearing , 1997 .

[19]  P. Chisnall Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data , 1996 .

[20]  Barry Richards,et al.  The Emotional Deficit in Political Communication , 2004 .

[21]  Cristian Vaccari,et al.  From the air to the ground: the internet in the 2004 US presidential campaign , 2008, New Media Soc..

[22]  Doris A. Graber,et al.  Seeing is remembering: How visuals contribute to learning from television news , 1990 .

[23]  A.M.J. Derks Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections , 2009 .

[24]  Cristian Vaccari THE INTERNET IN THE 2008 U . S . PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION “ Technology is a Commodity ” : The Internet in the 2008 United States Presidential Election , 2013 .

[25]  P. Norris,et al.  Getting the Message Out: A Two-Step Model of the Role of the Internet in Campaign Communication Flows During the 2005 British General Election , 2008 .

[26]  Rachel Gibson,et al.  Changing Campaign Communications: A Party-Centered Theory of Professionalized Campaigning , 2001 .

[27]  Brian Pitts,et al.  Making an Impression: New Media in the 2008 Presidential Nomination Campaigns , 2009, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[28]  Mary F. E. Ebeling Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns , 2013 .

[29]  W. Bennett,et al.  A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication , 2008 .

[30]  S. Schneider NEW MEDIA CAMPAIGNS AND THE MANAGED CITIZEN , 2007 .

[31]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices , 2002, American Political Science Review.

[32]  A. Chadwick Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance , 2009 .

[33]  Betty Pfefferbaum,et al.  American behavioral scientist , 1995 .

[34]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .